Revised result: [VOTE] MyFaces 2.0 optimization options

[Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org>]

Hi,

Two voters have changed their votes, so here is the revised result:

[1] +4, 0 vetoes
[2] +1, 2 vetoes
[3] +0, 2 vetoes
[4] +1, 0 vetoes

Matthias, you paved the way for t:ajax :-)

Lets's go ... now, implementing t:ajax involves upgrading tomhawk to 2.0 
... I offer to go for it.

1. Has someone set up a tomahawk20 branch?
2. I guess not, so is it ok if I do so?
3. Who are the current maintainers of tomhawk 1.1 und tomahawk 1.2?

Best Regards,
Ganesh

Ganesh schrieb:
 > Hi,
 >
 > Vote was closed by 2009-04-27 09:55 a.m. Final results of the vote:
 > [1] +3, 1 veto
 > [2] +1, 3 vetoes
 > [3] +0, 3 vetoes
 > [4] +1, 0 vetoes
 >
 > Thus, no consensus has been reached by this vote. This is, what the 
decision making process on 
http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making prescribes:
 >
 > >>The rules require that a negative vote includes an alternative 
proposal or a detailed explanation of the reasons for the negative vote. 
The community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative proposal 
that resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases, the concerns 
leading to the negative vote can be addressed.
 > This process is called "consensus gathering" and we consider it a 
very important indication of a healthy community.<<
 >
 > So, as everybody has given alternative proposals, all vetoers are 
asked to give detailed explanations for their negative votes to enable 
consensus gathering. My personal observation is that everybody was 
pretty fast with emitting vetoes making me feel I'm at the UNO security 
council :-) Imho and though I can't emit a binding vote solutions [1] to 
[3] all aren't that bad. Maybe everybody who emitted a veto could 
consider weakening it to a +0 thus opening the path for a majority decision?
 >
 > Best Regards,
 > Ganesh
 >
 > Ganesh schrieb:
 > > Hi,
 > >
 > > We are trying to agree on a way to include the optimization options 
pps:true/false, queuesize:n, errorlevel:WARNING/ERROR/NONE for JSF 2.0 
Javascript with the MyFaces JSF 2.0 implementation.
 > > We've got 4 different proposed solutions, each has been checked for 
technical feasability:
 > >
 > > 1.) extra options packed in a new t:ajax tag and myfaces.ajax.request
 > > 2.) optimization options as attributes of f:ajax
 > > 3.) optimization options within f:attributes nested in f:ajax
 > > 4.) a separate taglibrary with a single tag mf:ajax included with 
the core
 > > Please consider the solutions and vote! See previous mails on this 
list with "f:ajax and MyFaces extensions" in the subject for further 
details.
 > >
 > > Please note:
 > > This vote is "majority approval" with a minimum of three +1 votes. 
This is a code modification vote [1], so you can veto a solution with a 
vote of -1. Please vote whole numbers. You can give a vote on each of 
the 4 solutions. E.g. you can vote:
 > >
 > > 1.) +1
 > > 2.) +1
 > > 3.) +0
 > > 4.) -1
 > >
 > > The vote lasts for 72 hours. It start on 2009-04-24 9:55 a.m. and 
ends on 2009-04-27 09:55 a.m.
 > >
 > > ------------------------------------------------
 > > [ ] +1 - you favourize this solution
 > > [ ] +0 - you don't like this solution
 > > [ ] -1  - you veto this solution
 > >
 > >
 > > Best Regards,
 > > Ganesh Jung
 > >
 > > [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
 >
 >

Re: setup tomahawk 2.0

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>>> Lets's go ... now, implementing t:ajax involves upgrading tomhawk to 2.0
>>>> ... I offer to go for it.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Has someone set up a tomahawk20 branch?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not that I know of the consensous was that the work on tomahawk will
>>> start as soon as we have the core in place...
>>> But I think you can prepare everything within our impl
>>> and then move it over to Tomahawk as soon as it is ready...
>>>
>>
>> was there already a thread on this one (making tomahawk 2.0) ?
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> -M
>>
>
> What means "have the core in place"? It'll take quite a bit, before it
> passes the TCK ...

sure :-) That should not stop creating a tomahawk2 branch...

-M

>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. I guess not, so is it ok if I do so?
>>>>
>
> What do you think on this one? I'd have Mojarra to test tomahawk20 against.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ganesh
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

setup tomahawk 2.0

[Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org>]

Hi,

>>> Lets's go ... now, implementing t:ajax involves upgrading tomhawk to 2.0
>>> ... I offer to go for it.
>>>
>>> 1. Has someone set up a tomahawk20 branch?
>>>       
>> Not that I know of the consensous was that the work on tomahawk will
>> start as soon as we have the core in place...
>> But I think you can prepare everything within our impl
>> and then move it over to Tomahawk as soon as it is ready...
>>     
>
> was there already a thread on this one (making tomahawk 2.0) ?
> I don't think so.
>
> -M
>   
What means "have the core in place"? It'll take quite a bit, before it 
passes the TCK ...
>   
>>     
>>> 2. I guess not, so is it ok if I do so?
>>>       
What do you think on this one? I'd have Mojarra to test tomahawk20 against.

Best Regards,
Ganesh

Re: Revised result: [VOTE] MyFaces 2.0 optimization options

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ganesh schrieb:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Two voters have changed their votes, so here is the revised result:
>>
>> [1] +4, 0 vetoes
>> [2] +1, 2 vetoes
>> [3] +0, 2 vetoes
>> [4] +1, 0 vetoes
>>
>> Matthias, you paved the way for t:ajax :-)
>>
>> Lets's go ... now, implementing t:ajax involves upgrading tomhawk to 2.0
>> ... I offer to go for it.
>>
>> 1. Has someone set up a tomahawk20 branch?
>
> Not that I know of the consensous was that the work on tomahawk will
> start as soon as we have the core in place...
> But I think you can prepare everything within our impl
> and then move it over to Tomahawk as soon as it is ready...

was there already a thread on this one (making tomahawk 2.0) ?
I don't think so.

-M

>
>
>> 2. I guess not, so is it ok if I do so?
>> 3. Who are the current maintainers of tomhawk 1.1 und tomahawk 1.2?
>>
> Leonardo Uribe...
>
> Werner
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: Revised result: [VOTE] MyFaces 2.0 optimization options

[Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>]

Ganesh schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Two voters have changed their votes, so here is the revised result:
> 
> [1] +4, 0 vetoes
> [2] +1, 2 vetoes
> [3] +0, 2 vetoes
> [4] +1, 0 vetoes
> 
> Matthias, you paved the way for t:ajax :-)
> 
> Lets's go ... now, implementing t:ajax involves upgrading tomhawk to 2.0 
> ... I offer to go for it.
> 
> 1. Has someone set up a tomahawk20 branch?

Not that I know of the consensous was that the work on tomahawk will
start as soon as we have the core in place...
But I think you can prepare everything within our impl
and then move it over to Tomahawk as soon as it is ready...


> 2. I guess not, so is it ok if I do so?
> 3. Who are the current maintainers of tomhawk 1.1 und tomahawk 1.2?
> 
Leonardo Uribe...

Werner